They both agreed on 800 billion in rev increases. Obama took that to the Dems and they demanded an additional 400 billion. That is the 1.2 trillion that was then brought back.

That is when Boehner walked away.

"Roughly an hour later, Speaker Boehner appeared before reporters on Capital Hill to say talks had broken down because President Obama had “moved the goal posts,” during the final hours of the negotiation, and that Boehner would now continue negotiations with House and Senate leaders. The final sticking point between the two men is a dispute over $400 billion in tax increases over 10 years, or less than 1% of the total federal budget during that time. Boehner and Obama had already agreed to $800 billion in revenue increases and several times as much in spending cuts, including cuts in entitlements. “It’s the president that walked away from his agreement,” Boehner said. Obama denied any backtracking in negotiations.

So, while Obama claimed he did not "move the goal posts". . . .how is it that Obama even mentioned the 800 billion, but then started talking about 1.2 trillion after his talks with the Dems.

If you had continued with your time line you would have gotten to this point.

In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : How ya doin matty. I enjoy your posts as you always debate fairly and respectfully. I cannot when it comes to some of the Lefties on here,.....I apologize,....I just can`t control myself. I would agree with you on the Iraq theory you present. But,......we had years and years (back to the 1980`s) of data supporting Saddam`s WMD, ignored resolutions, and outright murder of his own citizens. The likes of Gore, Clinton, Lieberman,Kerry, ......even Ted Kennedy for Pete`s sake, ALL have speeches (easily located), stating this. Intelligence from all over the world was consistent. Yes,.....it was (and still is) mismanaged and GWB will go down in history as "owning" the debacle that was/is Iraq. On the tax cuts,.......didn`t tax revenues to the government rise? I don`t know and don`t have a bunch of time to research it today. If the Bush tax cuts expire, won`t taxes go up on everyone that got a cut? If so, doesn`t that mean that 50% of Americans (the 50% that pay all the taxes) will pay more? My big issue with "tax-cuts for the rich" is,........they really aren`t "tax cuts for the rich". They`re tax cuts for everyone. Obama says "millionaires and billionaires" but, (as CNN reported), he gets to the table and says "Top 5%". Well "Top 5%" is me and you. I would like to cut as much spending as possible before I can pay more tax right now. Just saying.Posted by jmel

Well, if you want to go back to the 80s on Iraq, when the primary weapons in Saddam's arsenal were the ones we gave him, I'm still not sure that justifies in any real sense the '03 invasion OR its horrific aftermath.

But neither is the amount of money spent on the whole bloody affair a minor point. When defense funds are not spent in aid of, y'know, actual defense, that is a significant responsibility and one that is often forgotten on the right. This is not to mention the vast sums that went to foreign-based contractors, sovereign wealth funds (bribes) and extraneous services or monies that just up and vanished into the desert.

I should note that your "tax cuts for the rich" argument cuts both ways: a "tax hike for the rich" means that on most income the wealthy pay the same tax as everyone else up to a specified amount and ONLY the amount earned above that threshold is taxed at the higher rate.

But it's incredibly disingenuous to argue for tax reform and yet refuse to even consider certain targeted tax hikes as a way to balance the cuts which inevitably add to the deficit. Last night, every single gop candidate said they would walk away from a deal that provided 10 dollars of spending cuts for every 1 dollar of tax increase. That's borderline insane (even Bret Baier was stunned).

Look, this debate is mostly driven by the people who pay the most taxes anyway. If they don't want to pay taxes, they'll find a way not to pay them. Period. Those loopholes and escape hatches must end if we're ever to get a handle on this, but characterizing this as 'tax hikes' or demanding 'cuts only' is less-than-helpful.

In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : Whoa,........I`m one of "those people who pay the most taxes anyway" and I don`t know any escape hatches, loopholes, and if I opt to "not pay taxes",....I go to jail.Posted by jmel

Sounds like you need a better accountant, or at least an off-shore haven. Or you could claim all your income as capital gains and pay the lower 15% rate.

When the owners of capital stand to reap the most benefits from the success of that capital in a business venture, then they should also be prepared to pay the most taxes.

In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : I see you've been taking quotes out of context to try and twist Kennedy's view. That's just pathetic. Why is it that when people can't argue the facts then they resort to distortions and taking snippets out of context. When all else fails just lie and obfuscate. If you had bothered to read the entire speech you would see he was against invading Iraq. But judging by your willingness to distort the facts it doesn't surprise me that you base your accusations on a few lines out of a hundred that show his conclusion. That he was against the Iraq war. ... but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary. Nor has the Administration laid out the cost in blood and treasure of this operation... But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction .... I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons... http://tedkennedy.org/ownwords/event/sais_iraq I guess you have a whole line of rationalizing as to why, if Kennedy was for the Iraq war, he actually voted against it. Can't wait to hear that line of BS.Posted by airborne-rgr

Kind of like your post when you removed the parts about acknowledging the "fact" Sadaam had WMD with the three ...

In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : Whoa,........I`m one of "those people who pay the most taxes anyway" and I don`t know any escape hatches, loopholes, and if I opt to "not pay taxes",....I go to jail.Posted by jmel

In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : Not sure where you`re going here Reub. The House passed 2 Bills on the debt ceiling thing and they were both defeated in the Senate. The president also said he would veto both of those House bills if they ever made it to his desk. I understand fully fillibusters,etc,etc,....... Bottom line,....Republicans have a majority in the House only.Posted by jmel

Looking at the big picture beyond the latest political scrape. We have deadlock because of a split government including the Senate rules that thwart the majority's efforts to pass legislation and the Presidents efforts to fill administrative posts. The result is the G.O.P. has a lot more (negating) power than they appear to do.

In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : Understood. With the House 240-193 Republican and 79 of those members being "identified" Tea Party, ......it does in fact seem that they will be heard. That being said, weren`t there ways that the president and the Senate could have moved to increase the debt ceiling without the House?Posted by jmel

Well, the president could have used the 14th Amendment, but that had never been done before. He had to wait for Congress as they create the legislation. I suppose the Senate could have done more, but I think they saw the issue as a House gambit that carried with it a political cost that they were more than willing to allow to rest with the G.O.P.